Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM HAS been included in every Programme for Government in the twenty-first century. There have been 21 referendums in that time.
Despite this prolific history, the Programme for Government for the new Fianna Fáil/Fine Gael-led coalition does not commit to any constitutional change during the upcoming term.
Two key reforms promised in the 2020 Programme – a right to housing and the extension of the presidential franchise — were left unresolved and now appear completely off the agenda. In fact, the Constitution is barely mentioned at all.
Of course, this is not to say a referendum cannot happen outside this planned programme. However, almost every referendum delivered can be connected to a Programme for Government commitment.
Is the absence of any new referendum in the Programme for Government a simple oversight? Or does it result from the fallout from the embarrassing defeat of the Family and Care Referendums in 2024?
Since the 1990s, Ireland’s political climate has been marked by the regular occurrence of referendums on the large social issues of our time, such as divorce, same-sex marriage and abortion.
Alongside these major referendums have been more symbolic liberalising referendums e.g. the blasphemy and family and care referendums.
These reforms were not strictly necessary for any legislative reason. Rather, they hold a symbolic value in creating a constitution which reflects contemporary values.
The Family and Care referendums were expected to continue the trend towards constitutional liberalisation. Instead, they suffered some of the largest defeats in Irish referendum history.
The fallout from the Family and Care referendums was stark. In the days afterwards, political rows emerged within the Government about how the referendums were managed.
Opposition parties that had promised to rerun the referendums with different wording rolled back on those commitments. A month later the previously announced patent court referendum was postponed.
In the space of one campaign for two symbolic changes, the Irish referendum moved from shiny success to poisoned chalice.
The strategic use of referendums for political impact is well-researched. While the primary reason to hold a referendum is usually to decide an issue, secondary motivations may also be at play. For example, referendums may be used to break political disagreements within parties, to take a particular issue off the electoral agenda or to legitimise the government by proxy.
Orchestrating a successful referendum boosts government legitimacy by demonstrating an understanding of the public mood and the trust of citizens. The inverse is true of a failed campaign.
Symbolic referendums are more likely to be motivated by politics, lacking a clear legislative rationale. The Family and Care referendums may be an example of Leo Varadkar’s government looking to make a political impact and going badly wrong.
While Leo Varadkar was careful to say there is no particular boost for a government that wins a referendum, he described the loss as ‘two wallops’ for the coalition.
Thus, the question is: does this government no longer care to extend the presidential franchise or enshrine a right to housing? If constitutional reform can so easily fall off the agenda, we must ask how committed the Government ever were to their referendum proposals.
Is it the case that the motivation for holding the recent referendums was always about something other than the policy initiative? More about the political capital that comes with winning it? If it is not an easy win, then a referendum is not of interest.
In addition, there may be a breakdown in consensus around constitutional liberalisation in the Government parties. Following the referendum, backbenchers mentioned that the government should return to ‘core values’ rather than continue to focus on ‘social issues.’ This revised ethos is reflected in other commitments of the new Programme for Government, such as increasing Garda numbers and support for business.
We are presented with an opportunity to reflect on the purpose of constitutional change in Irish society. We should examine the motivations of the politicians who call for and introduce referendums.
We should question why the Government was so intent on holding the referendums, considering the obvious lack of consensus within and outside the Government as to content and wording.
Internationally, referendums are commonly accused of being elite-dominated, with governments often substantially controlling the agenda and campaign. What the Family and Care referendums may have demonstrated, is that Irish referendums cannot be easily controlled by politicians for their own political purposes.
In the absence of garnering such influence and control, has constitutional reform gone out of style for Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael?
Reidín Doyle is a PHD student at Trinity College Dublin.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Tell us our concerns in niche dramatic terms we never heard before… Thanks.
@Vonvonic: I know. Can’t be bothered reading when I see that. I know the rest will just annoy me.
@Vonvonic: Polarity is important as understanding it lets you know where your countries relationships are and should be, multi-polarity means Ireland are likely to be drawn into the middle of multiple centres of power’s arguments. That’s a massive risk, for example right now France and the UK have a major dispute in relation to fishing agreements, Ireland and the UK actually have shared a common opinion on it for the past 40 years but now Ireland is aligned to France in this area through the EU and most joes on the street will say “da Brits are always wrong” but we may have more to gain from the UK winning the argument – either way Ireland will now be pulled hither and thither. Multi-polarity is a massive risk, especially when the Center of power is not aligned to your benefit… is the EU?
Once Michael’s tender is over, all will be grand.
@Madra: Yes, when he goes polarity will automatically be solved, nurses will grow on trees, as will lorry drivers and builders, economic scarring won’t cause a recession because the global market will understand that Michael Martin was in fact the real reason for the pandemic and magically Ireland will grow a reasonable political party that our biggest economic partners can work with out of the countries ar5e. Or the next leaders will all be the same because the same people are voting… Lowry will still top Tipp, The eejits will still top Kerry, people will still drive parish pump, populism will continue to grow and Ireland will have a load of parties with around 15/20% of the vote that can’t agree for the next 2 decades and nothing will change while they all point fingers at each other.
YAAAAAWWWNNNN, More selling fear lol
The largest risk to Ireland is the incompetence of our current leaders closely followed by the naked popularism of those poised to replace them. If ever a country was screaming out for change, it is modern Ireland, but where will change come from.
have your say